Sherif Mehralivand1, Sandra Bednarova2, Joanna H Shih3, Francesca V Mertan4, Sonia Gaur4, Maria J Merino5, Bradford J Wood6, Peter A Pinto7, Peter L Choyke4, Baris Turkbey8. 1. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany; Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. 3. Biometric Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland. 4. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 8. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: turkbeyi@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System), version 2 scoring system, introduced in 2015, is based on expert consensus. In the same time frame ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) introduced a new pathological scoring system for prostate cancer. Our goal was to prospectively evaluate the cancer detection rates for each PI-RADS, version 2 category and compare them to ISUP group scores in patients undergoing systematic biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 339 treatment naïve patients prospectively underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging evaluated with PI-RADS, version 2 with subsequent systematic and fusion guided biopsy from May 2015 to May 2016. ISUP scores were applied to pathological specimens. An ISUP score of 2 or greater (ie Gleason 3 + 4 or greater) was defined as clinically significant prostate cancer. Cancer detection rates were determined for each PI-RADS, version 2 category as well as for the T2 weighted PI-RADS, version 2 categories in the peripheral zone. RESULTS: The cancer detection rate for PI-RADS, version 2 categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 was 25%, 20.2%, 24.8%, 39.1% and 86.9% for all prostate cancer, and 0%, 9.6%, 12%, 22.1% and 72.4% for clinically significant prostate cancer, respectively. On T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging the cancer detection rate in the peripheral zone was significantly higher for PI-RADS, version 2 category 4 than for overall PI-RADS, version 2 category 4 in the peripheral zone (all prostate cancer 36.6% vs 48.1%, p = 0.001, and clinically significant prostate cancer 22.9% vs 32.6%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The cancer detection rate increases with higher PI-RADS, version 2 categories.
PURPOSE: The PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System), version 2 scoring system, introduced in 2015, is based on expert consensus. In the same time frame ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) introduced a new pathological scoring system for prostate cancer. Our goal was to prospectively evaluate the cancer detection rates for each PI-RADS, version 2 category and compare them to ISUP group scores in patients undergoing systematic biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 339 treatment naïve patients prospectively underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging evaluated with PI-RADS, version 2 with subsequent systematic and fusion guided biopsy from May 2015 to May 2016. ISUP scores were applied to pathological specimens. An ISUP score of 2 or greater (ie Gleason 3 + 4 or greater) was defined as clinically significant prostate cancer. Cancer detection rates were determined for each PI-RADS, version 2 category as well as for the T2 weighted PI-RADS, version 2 categories in the peripheral zone. RESULTS: The cancer detection rate for PI-RADS, version 2 categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 was 25%, 20.2%, 24.8%, 39.1% and 86.9% for all prostate cancer, and 0%, 9.6%, 12%, 22.1% and 72.4% for clinically significant prostate cancer, respectively. On T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging the cancer detection rate in the peripheral zone was significantly higher for PI-RADS, version 2 category 4 than for overall PI-RADS, version 2 category 4 in the peripheral zone (all prostate cancer 36.6% vs 48.1%, p = 0.001, and clinically significant prostate cancer 22.9% vs 32.6%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The cancer detection rate increases with higher PI-RADS, version 2 categories.
Authors: Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Lauren Rosenblum; Matthew D Greer; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Joanna H Shih; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Rajan T Gupta; Daniel J Margolis; Nathan Lay; Sherif Mehralivand; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jonathan B Bloom; Graham R Hale; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Clayton Smith; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Harbir S Sidhu; Nikolaos Dikaios; Edward W Johnston; Lucy Am Simmons; Alex Freeman; Alexander Ps Kirkham; Hashim U Ahmed; Shonit Punwani Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Henkjan Huisman; Karen Drukker; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Justin S Kirby; Nicholas Petrick; George Redmond; Maryellen L Giger; Kenny Cha; Artem Mamonov; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keyvan Farahani Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-11-10
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Jelle Barentsz; Geert Villeirs; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Daniel J Margolis; Baris Turkbey; Harriet C Thoeny; François Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Sadhna Verma; Jeffrey C Weinreb Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Julie Y An; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Clayton P Smith; Julie A Peretti; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-12